…I normally don’t get political here, but the way some folks who should know better are beating on Lila Rose and James O’Keefe lately is getting truly annoying and silly.
For those not in the know: These two 20-something have been going undercover and exposing the dark underbelly of Planned Parenthood for a while now, showing how they aid and abet not only the moral crime of abortion, but the legal crimes of statutory rape and aiding the sex-trafficing industry.
It’s understandable that the baby-killing folks would attack these journalists for threatening their deathlihood (opposite of livelihood), Yet, there are allegedly pro-life Catholics who are trying to beat on these kids for….
Lying?
Huh?
No, I’m not kidding. Yes, the catechism says lying is a sin. But the folks in their snug offices won’t take on similar passages in the Catechism:
“CCC: 2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.”
…. I am afraid the Allegedly Pro-Life Catholic Critics [APLCCs for short here on in] are giving a strong appearance of doging the question when they plead ignorance of the Nazi vs. Jew situation.
None of the of Lila Rose or O’Keefe APLCCs seem willing to answer this question:
Lila Rose and James O’Keefe lied to bring truth about the murder of unborn children to light.
Non Jews lied to the Nazis to save Jews from death.
Undercover cops lie in order to pre-emptively save young people and neighborhoods from drug infestation.
…if Lila ought not to have lied (and the principle of double effect does most assuredly apply here, unless you wish to throw that out too…be careful…), then the other folks ought not to have lied, either.
So, APLCCs, would you have told the truth if there were Jews in your house? Being silent or saying ‘none of your business’ would get them and your family caught and killed, too. should we stop undercover cops from their activities, too? They lie quite a bit to keep yours & my neighborhoods safe, yet I don’t recall the Church censuring such activities ever.
Put another way: I do not believe you consider the lie per se to be the horrible sin you claim it to be here. Otherwise, you would be just as forceful in denouncing the factory owner who hid Anne Frank and lied about it. If you truly believed their lie was the intrinsic evil you are writing about here, then you would have also been denouncing WWII spies, along with Crockett and Tubbs, with equal abandon.
Yet, your ire is only vented on two young people who have more courage in their little fingers than you or I have in our whole bodies, and who have done so to save lives far more defenseless than anyone saved by spies or cops.
Seeing that: By the standards of CCC2484 (which I’m sure you’ve read, but don’t recall you quoting), I’d argue that the gravity of their lie pales in comparison with that of the folks you are lambasting, venial enough to be poofed into the ether by an acceptance of the Eucharist.
I am not arguing that the catechism does not says what it does. I am suggesting you are in error in your interpretation and application, as it is selectively presented and improperly focused on the good guys, rather than the folks who are doing the truly horrific acts of abortion.
….there, I said ti better. [I was in a grouchy mood, and typed a reply to someone on FB last night that was unacceptable for being uncharitable. x-d it out, put the above in instead.]
So, short version: please don’t criticize Lila Rose for lying, unless you’ve also already done so to those who lie to save Jews or catch drug dealers.
———–
To finish: Not a quote from GKC, but TR:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
“Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi John,
I just got through reading Mark Shea’s post, and answers and answers and answers on this subject, and all I have to say (it was a very very long read) is that I agree with you.
And as far as I could tell, he never answered the question on whether what was done (the telling of a falsehood to gain access to information) was a lie according to the church or not. I think it is incredibly silly to keep condemning this type of behavior you if you can’t answer the basic question of whether it is a lie according to the church or not. I am no expert on anything to do with the church, but if you write for a Catholic newspaper it seems you should at least find out this sort of information before writing a post such as this.
There are several posts on there from priests and even they seem to be conflicted about what the church teachings actually say. But most of all, I think people are conflicted because they do not understand the basis of what Lila Rose and her crew did. As far as I can tell, and I’ve seen the videos, they told a falsehood in order to gain information about the practices of Planned Parenthood. Looked at in that light, is what they did a lie according the church? I’m not sure it is, if what I’ve read is what the bible says. I’ve not read the parts of the bible people keep refering to yet so I can’t say either way for sure. But then again, which interpretation of the bible are we talking about anyway? I would rather see church teachings on the matter. Some of the teachings have been refered to, but yet again, are they taken out of context? All teachings and passages refered have been very specific, and its hard to see the whole picture if they are taken out of context.
Even without seeing the teachings I find it hard to interpret the actions of Lila Rose and her crew as being evil. There is no evil intent on their part as far as I’ve seen and they do not wish to get anyone specifically in trouble with their actions. As far as I can tell all they wanted to do was gather information and expose the practices of an organization known to break the law. Maybe I am wrong in my interpretation of their actions but I do not believe so. In which case according to what Mr. Shea wrote, they did not sin.
Anyway that is my humble (maybe not so humble, I don’t know lol) opinion.
Thank you, Shadowgirl!
The biggest danger of one of these debates (though they can be fun) is that some folks end up ignoring what ought to be the real focus: saving babies.
I would be a little less irked, if some of the objections I mentioned above were actually fielded by Lila’s detractors.
As many of her detractors do not, but instead a) repeat their incomplete assertions, b)namecall those who disagree with them & c) persist in their obstinacy, I’m beginning to wonder how much some of the Lila-haters are motivated more by less-savory motives than pro-life concerns, orthodoxy & fidelity to the Church.
Shea at least mentions that he is conflicted, not convicted in several spots, but you have to look for it in the midst of a very long post.
I’m largely done debating this, anyway. It’s now on the level of How Many Angels Can Dance On A Pinhead for me. I’d rather celebrate Lila’s victory, and now push for the full defunding of Planned Barrenhood.
JDM